Sorabji Sonata no. 1 (Hamelin) pt. 1

An incredible piece. Sorabji dedicated it to Ferruccio Busoni, another one of my favorite composers.

Category:

Music

Tags:

• Sorabji

[OrangeSodaKing]

Do you have a recording of Sorabji's transcription of Ravel's Spanish Rhapsody? I've heard that it's amazing!

[Reaper978]

@OrangeSodaKing

No I don't, sorry. I listened to it awhile ago but I can't really remember it.

[scordatura]

This sonata makes me feel like an inferior human being. My brain cannot fasten onto any pattern in the music, and leaves me wondering whether I'm not intelligent enough to comprehend what's going on. Is there a structure to this piece? If I could discern even its outline, that would be a start to understanding it. I think i'll need a heavily annotate score if I'm ever going to make progress with this one.

[Reaper978]

Well it is a highly improvisatory composition. The themes are long and free lines (chords as well), but there is definitely real thematic development. Of course, the themes are often repeated in far-flung and wildly different environments, so I could see why it is hard to hear them.

The themes are often placed in counterpoint with other figurations that may not ever be repeated. It's pretty arcane music and more needs to be written to help make it accessible to people.

[LackingLack0]

fuck yeah

[Gidselgrisen]

Wow! So many colours, strange harmonies, rhythms and sonorities!

While still being very complex, this is not as random as, say, some parts of Opus C.

Me like!

[listenwhatisayoh]

@thegreatapologist 4. ... about the sonata, that it is a "thrilling magic-carpet ride, hurtling from splendour to splendour within a virtually unprecedented breadth of tonal and instrumental audacity" to him. I don't know if this is clearer, but it is certainly more interesting. ;-) Maybe the whole thing is a bit like major and minor can mean so much more then happy and sad. Maybe some atonal pieces are more 'beautiful' than others while being as fascinating, maybe there's a clearer way.

[listenwhatisayoh]

@thegreatapologist 3. ... beautiful, one who hears it for the first time in his entire life says it's ugly. Okay, those definitions are fine, but can it be that the first person actually means that the music is fascinating and capturing, and that the second person thinks that the music is repulsive or unfamiliar? Sure, a kindret spirit knows what the first person means, but in my opinion, beautiful/ugly are vague and hardly tangible if you really dive into atonal music. Hamelin himself said ...

[listenwhatisayoh]

@thegreatapologist 2. ... somehow 'perceptible' meaning. That is what I meant by self purpose. I assume the reason why you object to me is just because we have - at least in this context - different perceptions of the term 'beauty'. Atonal music is enjoyable, i've stated this more than once. But can it be 'beautiful' or even 'ugly'? I only want to say that art, especially atonal music, is much more versatile than what those two terms can describe. One who likes atonal music says it's ...

[listenwhatisayoh]

@thegreatapologist 1. I agree with you that the purpose of art should be to communicate something. My point is that if you say "the only purpose of art is to share something beautiful with the audience", which is what he said, you limit it to just a mean to satisfaction (or a 'mean to an end' in general). Friedrich Schiller, among other romanticists, used to make this differentiation between 'sensual' and 'spiritual'. Art is not merely sensual, but also has a higher, undefinable but ...

[thegreatapologist]

@listenwhatisayoh I object to your suggestion that atonal music can not be beautiful or that listening to music for beauty is egoistic.  If anything, the presumptuous nature of some of your arguments makes you sound egoistic. I'm not saying are; perhaps I have heard to many presumptuous people say them.

In truth, art is almost always inherently for pleasure in some form, usually for economic reasons. If it brings no pleasure, it will not be viewed, so the artist will suffer.

[thegreatapologist]

@listenwhatisayoh Art most definitely does have a purpose. It's just not what he stated.

Art should communicate something to the audience. What, how, and why are vary subjective, but art is always better when it conveys its idea clearly. This is self evident in literature, but it might be less clear for music. After all, does this not isolate atonal or formless works? Not so; it elevates them. Communication of pain, chaos, and torment can be very effective in an atonal environment.

[Reaper978]

@egolessboy Nah, don't be fooled. Everything is still regressing incredibly fast.

[egolessboy]

@boohellokitty i'm sure that was as honest and minimalist as possible! maybe we are progressing

[listenwhatisayoh]

@KhagarBalugrak 5. I hope you understand now, that this is purely a misconception. We just can't understand each other, that's all. If I had dragged Chopin in the mud as you have Sorabji and Marc André Hamelin, you would have reacted exactly like me here. (I never would of course, since I adore Chopin, as I just said)

But what remains is just that you can't understand atonal music, and i still pity you for this. Please stop trying to find arguments for atonal music being bad, that's ridiculous.